All appeals filed by the Defendants and by the Prosecutor against Defendant A are dismissed.

Part 8 of the judgment of the court below is 17.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The misunderstanding of facts (Defendant A) that Defendant B remitted on March 10, 2014 (No. 4.970,000 won, attached to the crime list I, attached to the facts charged), is not a bribe since the sales proceeds received by Defendant B after selling the inventory of the new store operated by Defendant A to Defendant B.

The sentence of Defendant A’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment and a fine of 15 million won) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B The sentence (six months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

The sentence of the lower court against Defendant A by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

In a case where the nature of the consideration for an act other than the duty is indivisiblely combined with the money received, demanded, or promised by a public official on the legal doctrine related to the determination of mistake of facts, the entire money received, demanded, or promised has the nature of the consideration for an act of duty indivisible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3039, Jul. 9, 2009). Defendant B’s relevant prosecutor’s statement made by the relevant public prosecutor’s office on May 8, 2015, the prosecutor’s office stated that KRW 530,000,000, which was remitted on June 19, 2013, was the purchase price for the article purchased by Defendant A while closing the new place operated by Defendant A along with G.

On the other hand, on the other hand, on March 10, 2014, the remittance of KRW 4,970,000, stated that the defendant A shall be aware of what name it was remitted or not.

Defendant

Defendant A’s relevant prosecutor’s statement made by the relevant prosecutor’s office on May 18, 2015, in relation to KRW 530,00,000 from the prosecutor’s office, he/she received an investment from Women He/she, and operates a new store in subway AC located in Seoul.

In 2013, Defendant B stated that the purchase price for the inventory goods was the price for the purchase of the inventory goods after closing the business, but about KRW 4.970,000,000, which occurred when Defendant B closed down the business.